d_wag

i suspect we'll find out in the next day or so that he failed another drug test and is facing a one year suspension

those aren't huge numbers and likely wouldn't attract too many pro bowl votes

he can wait......take care of the actual free agents to be, not a dude with 3 years left on his contract.......he'll be there come game 1 and i could care less if he's happy or not

not exactly a bold prediction, considering he led the team in ST tackles last year

of course......i guess i should have been more clear, but i was speaking purely in cases of player's performance (or lack there of).......obviously if a player retires the team can make a claim, but it is pretty uncommon that teams actually ever end up seeing the cash out of it (i.e. terrell owens with the eagles and jake plummer with the bucs)

i'd much prefer seeing evans and crowell extended over peters, as they are both up after the '08 season......peters can live with his deal UNTIL the bills are ready to discuss it - no one put a gun to his head when he took his fat signing bonus to extend........and of course, if he didn't take that extension he wouldn't be under-paid right now play or sit home, whatever

you are forgetting a very important element that is guaranteed to the player - signing bonus........regardless of whether the player meets, exceeds, or does not reach the expected level of performance the team will NEVER see the signing bonus again.......so the way things should work are: what do the team's get out of long-term deals? they pay out a large signing bonus that they are putting at risk BUT they do get a player signed for a longer term.......if they want to cut a player they are well within there rights as per the terms of the CBA that the players have agreed to, but they will NEVER see those up front dollars again.......that is the price of gambling on locking up a player long-term what do the player's get out of long-term deals? they get a large signing bonus (which goes up based on years of commitment) and they get to keep that signing bonus regardless of performance.......what they are giving up is years - why else would the owners fork over large signing bonuses if they can't get the years locked in? the way things work now? teams still dish out large signing bonuses to get players locked up long-term, players still take the large signing bonuses because short-term deals don't put cash in their pockets immediately, but the players are refusing to honor their word and the CBA and this is creating an unfair economic system that clearly favors them......where is their risk if they can just ignore contracts when it favors their situation??......maybe the owners should take back some previously paid signing bonus from the next player who signs long-term and doesn't live up to the hype - we'll see how the players like it when teams go against the CBA as it applies to jason peters - honor the contract, or stay home, simple as that.......he wanted his signing bonus, and he got it, and if he didn't want to locked in he shouldn't have signed anything.......no one forced him to do that........whether he exceeded his contract or not has nothing to do with it - he agreed to it.......if he didn't perform up to his contract when the bills took a big risk on him given his limited experience, they wouldn't have seen ANY of those signing bonus dollars back - that was the price they paid for their gamble! why can't they enjoy the reward from their gamble? all peters (and many other NFL'ers) wants is to have his cake (signing bonuses) and eat it to (ignoring the commitment that comes with that signing bonus)......if the bills want to approach him about a new deal, good enough, keep him happy, but they don't owe him anything and i hate that some NFL players seem to think that they can ignore the CBA while expecting the owners to honor it......i love the stand the bengals have made against the players on behalf of the NFL and the bills should do the same against any player who thinks he's entitled to a new contract after happily taking his signing bonus dollars and committing to years on his deal

while roscoe is exceptional at PR (thus creating no fit for mckelvin) there are two KR spots (i.e. it's not mckelvin or mcgee as so many posters have mentioned) and he should be manning one of them because he's the second best KR on the team......it was painful watching scobey, jackson, and leaonard man the other spot last year and mckelvin should be in that spot just to keep teams honest and kicking to mcgee.........how much instruction is really required? catch the ball, follow the blocks, run........he did it in college, he can do it in the pros, with minimal instruction

thanks for driving up the price of tickets for people who actually want to see the game........you're a true fan

not if crowell walks - getting evans and him locked up long-term needs to be top priority right now. bills can't let their best young players walk and create new holes. when they do that it just means waiting on other positions of need to be filled year after year (ie TE)

the bills did try to acquire him in the past, but that was about 7 knee surgeries ago.......i think they take a pass as they have filled the need

anyone remember that ridiculous publicity stunt that donahoe and wilson pulled the day of that draft? they marched JP out to the media as if he was their 2005 first round pick and made all these corny remarks about the "pick"......it was over the top and really embarrassing i'm still waiting for them to introduce the bills 2004 second round pick

for those that are saying there is no new evidence here: during the initial investigation last september, if the commish asked belicheat "did you tape offensive signals?" and he answered "no" then we have a problem, as the videotape of just that has been produced by walsh........as that would be new information that should lead to additional sanctions, as per goodell's comments a few weeks ago.........this is the first i've seen offensive signals mentioned around spygate unfortunately the only person who knows the answer to that question is goodell, which is why i think he'll sweep this under the rug, as he did when he off the cuff remarked "we knew they taped games since 2000" 6 months after the investigation was completed.......the only reason he made that remark was because he found out that walsh had tapes that went back that far - how he didn't mention this important detail when handing out the original discipline proves just that........it is blatantly obvious the commish is making it up as he goes along in his effort to make this all go away as soon as possible

that's pretty bad luck.........i'm quite surprised they didn't just go with schmitt instead.......oh well

you'd be frustrated to if you were losing half a million with every pick! haha

nice work, but i count 54........you also forget about the long snapper, neil no bryan scott? bills were quick to resign him and seemed to be quite happy with his contribution last year what about whittle? i believe he was also resigned

wrong - the bills offered him the same deal by telling him they'd rip up the 2nd and final year of his contract.......he got no more money from the bears in '07 then what the bills were offering by honoring his '07 contract......... the fact of the matter is he didn't give the bills a fair chance and he wanted a trade or to be sent back to the eagles so he could be cut........he got what he wanted..........but i am glad that MANY bills fans didn't get what they wanted - which was not just to rip up the final year of his deal, but also to give him a fat signing bonus just to show up.........those fans were extremely short-sighted and it would have been a bad move - then and now

are you somehow asserting that walker would have helped the defense last year? are suggesting that the bills should have caved to this piece of trash and given him an extension? his lack of production and new contract speak to how replaceable he really is.......the bills made the right decision - hindsight not required i've heard of people being overly critical of bills management, but this is taking it a bit far! how anyone can sit here and come down on them for NOT signing him long-term is laughable

there were plenty of very legitimate arguments made as to why it would not be a good idea to extend a guy who had multiple years left on his deal and had essentially been dumped by the eagles........many just choose to ignore them.......thankfully the bills weren't so foolish

if your a "3rd and very long" or "extreme prevent" you only have one LB on the field, at most.........as crowell and poz are both better then ellison in coverage, either one of them would be in the game over ellison

what an idiot........thinking back to this time last year, it's absolutely amazing how many people on this board were screaming at management to cave into his demands and give him an extension

my thoughts exactly - i haven't seen much of anderson but from what i remember during his draft year blocking is not his strong suit......and even if he has shown improvement there, it's extremely doubtful he can measure up to royal in that area, as he's one of the best TE's in the league when it comes to blocking

interesting.......so who do you see as the 3 TE's? in my eyes, it's royal (starting), fine, and anderson OR johnson............with no H-back in the offense, schouman is as good as gone...........massaquoi is camp fodder

how are the bills going to keep 4 TE's? let alone dress all 4? fine is a lock for a roster spot.........i think royal, despite what many think, is a lock as well given his locker room presence and what he does bring to the table (i.e. very good blocking skills).........that leaves anderson, johnson, massaquoi, and schouman battling for one spot

you were wrong - you said 12, it was 10......move on i'm willing to wager that the 2008 Bills do not become the first team in the history of the NFL to carry 7 CB's or 12 DB's on a 53 man roster........it is ridiculous to think that any team would do that........you in?.........put up or shut up